Quote:...Hmmm, maybe the arrival time for digital is sooner than he thinks.
Yes. But firstly let me say that while I don't think there is anything in the bit you posted that is factually wrong, I think the analysis misses the point. I mean if you look at the "resolution" of a cassette tape on the molecular level it is a crazy big number too, but no one thinks that is a hirez medium, and they are right.
What the analysis misses is noise, which comes in different flavors but is inherent both the playback and recording process. And noise means you're never going to even remotely approach the theoretical "molecular" resolution of analog, so I'm not buying the idea that an LP is somehow equivalent 16 bit 760 MHz digital file, for a lot of reasons.
But rather than getting into a psudeomathamatical discussion of the difference between digital and analog, I'll just cut to the point, which is I agree with you. I've posted before that I'm a physicist by training and trade, so if anyone wants to come at me with Nyquist and Fourier transforms and the like you can bring it on, but for me the bottom line is no one has ever bought a Stradivarius, or a Rembrandt or a Chateau Margaux based on measurement or math, and I'm not going to judge my audio gear based on that either. I'm going to trust my ears, and my ears tell me that 16/44 digital done right can sound fantastic. I still listen to LPs, but honestly most of my humble CDs, and 16/44 digital downloads sound as good or better than my (pretty nice) analog rig.
But all this is JMO of course. I don't pretend to have an answer that works for anyone except me.